Back to top

Thomas H. Cohen

This report “[p]resents findings on general trends in pretrial detention and misconduct in the federal district courts between fiscal years 1995 and 2010. The report highlights trends in the number of defendants released and detained pretrial and examines the changing composition of defendants with federal pretrial dispositions, including the increase in defendants charged with immigration violations and the growth of defendants with serious criminal backgrounds. It examines the relationships between pretrial detention and the type of charge and the criminal history of the defendant. In addition, the report includes trends on the rates of pretrial misconduct, including technical violations, missed court appearances, and re-arrests for new offenses between 1995 and 2010” (p. 1).

› Pretrial Detention and Misconduct in Federal District Courts, 1995-2010 Cover

"Barriers that could impede the successful implementation of a supervision program (e.g., the responsivity principle) are frequently discussed under the risk, needs, and responsivity rubric, but have been historically under-researched. This paper describes an initial empirical investigation of the presence of responsivity factors among offenders under federal post-conviction supervision. From this analysis, we know that probation officers identified 28% of the nearly 20,000 offenders placed on federal supervision between November 2013 and March 2014 as having responsivity problems serious enough to constitute major barriers to supervision interventions. The most common responsivity factors identified are inadequate transportation and mental health. Offenders classified into the highest PCRA risk category were substantially more likely to have responsivity problems than their lower risk counterparts. These and other findings involving the presence of responsivity among federally supervised offenders will be further explored in this paper." Findings are presented for: presence of responsivity factors for offenders under federal supervision; relationship between responsivity factors and offender risk and supervision levels; investigating offenders identified with "other" responsivity factors; relationship between offender demographic characteristics and responsivity factors; and variation in the presence of responsivity across the federal judicial districts.

The Neglected "R" – Responsivity and the Federal Offender cover
Subscribe to Thomas H. Cohen